Monotheism Bites

YHWH/JHVH/ALLAH, aka the monotheistic, Abrahamic God:  you are such an asshole. Over 2500 years since Buddha gave his first sermon in the Deer Park at Sarnath, and Your divine "plan" is to wipe out the whole world by reintroducing a kind of tribal, ethno-ideological justification for genocide of everyone not professing faith in one of you...which requires one to then act to further the wiping out of believers in your other two names at some point, if I understand correctly.

This is as it was in your Old Testament, wiping out civilization after civilization because They were the depraved ones. Was there no one to tell you about the mote in the other's eye being the log in your eye before Jesus came along? Get it-- by the very judging of the Other, you bring God's judgement on yourself, and it's guilty.

God favoring and sending fire to the sacrifice made by Abel (the herder--the Hebrews), and ignoring that of Cain (the farmer--the farming civilizations in fertile lands that the Hebrews took over, exiling the men with a scarred forehead, lest they try to slip back in; enslaving the women & kids, of course--it was the Stone Age) so, extrapolating, the farmers, "jealous" of the herders whose goats were eating their crops, who were actively encroaching on their territory, fight back and kill some herders, and the herders crush them but, being an enlightened Stone Age tribe, don't kill all the men, merely scar and exile them, so they can live or starve somewhere else, not in the fertile land they'd settled.

Then, the tale goes, the Hebrews encountered the wrong farming civilization--Egypt, one of the greatest empires the world had known--and they were enslaved, until Persian King Cyrus freed them, it has recently become well-known, as the Isaiah 45 propaganda guy (fmr oil marketer turned prophet and grifter) has been spreading this idea since c.2016.

ALLAH, I think you've also encouraged your believers to be overzealous, oppressive toward women and nasty to non-Muslims. And JHVH, does it really require a world war to end world wars before your Son (like there's only one and not billions here on Earth) returns? not to mention stoning women accused of adultery and such.

So anyway, YHWH, they say you've had a plan, all along. Is the plan to basically fuck things up every so often with monotheistic groups, so world peace is never a thing, ever, except for really brief periods, say, when Ashoka repented of all the slaughter it had required to become emperor of nearly all of modern day India, and converted to Buddhism, afer which it really was a paradise on Earth there for a while.

I mean, when the evangelicals & suffragettes first gained control of the US Congress, it passed Prohibition, which really  fucked up the US forever because, as a result, the mafia are co-operators of domestic and foreign affairs. As a result, Roy Cohn introduced Donald Trump to "Fat" Tony Salerno, because he contolled all of the concrete that was sold in New York and New Jersey; real estate joined the construction-organized crime axis.

Then, in 1980, the GOP-SBC alliance brought the Evangelicals and associated magical thinkers back to the polls--they'd been away since the Depression, it seems--I wonder if they realized what their votes had done to the US?

So, Reagan, Leo Strauss neoconservatism and Milton Friedman economics (like Thatcher's in the UK) deregulated and privatized everything, leading directly to the wealth inequality and oligarchic-theocratic takeover of culture and government we see today...as musician Frank Zappa warned would happen on a talk show in the mid-1980s.

So YHWH/JHVH/ALLAH, WTF?

I just heard Charlie Kirk's widow promise that her screams would be heard around the world, implying that Kirk's minions should get in all non-Christians' faces with the Bible. We have entered the era of the Nazi Karens (13 Sept: refers to female uni students who got their profs fired for any comments perceived as disrespectful to Charlie Kirk's memory). Watch them go out and harass people, get some fired and some shunned or exiled, or beaten up, in the near future. And observe the big chilling effect it will have on blue cities.

Kirk's widow's speech explains why my brother, the 50-year-old evangelical pastor, who never before posted something like this, posted on FB after Charlie Kirk's passing, and his widow's press conference, that Christians should now go out and preach the Bible respectfully but unashamedly to people (the ones who don't appear to be Christian, I presume), because he presumes that the End Times are upon us, and there's very little time for the non-Christians to convert or go to Hell. He's only trying to help. They're only trying to get a theocracy established in the United States to help us, people...some 400 years after some English Puritans came to what is now Plymouth, Massachusetts, over half of them dying on the way or soon after arrival, to escape State Religion. The Native Americans in the area saved them by bringing them food and teaching them how to grow and catch animals. The indigenous population would come to regret saving the Pilgrims, but they would have been wiped out, eventually.

Hernán Cortés and his fleet of 11 ships, carrying about 500 soldiers and 16 horses, landed near modern-day Veracruz, Mexico, on April 21, 1519, initiating the conquest of the Aztec Empire. Departing Cuba on February 18, 1519, against the orders of Governor Diego Velázquez, Cortés scuttled his ships to commit to the expedition.

In Pánfilo de Narváez’s expedition, which landed in April 1520 to arrest Cortes, an enslaved African had contracted smallpox. An infected individual in Narváez’s crew, likely Francisco de Eguía, spread the virus, which Cortés’s forces carried inland after defeating Narváez.

Thus began a catastrophic pandemic. Smallpox, unknown in the Americas, devastated immunologically vulnerable indigenous populations, with fatality rates of 30-50% per outbreak. The epidemic hit Tenochtitlán by September 1520, killing about 40% of its population, including Emperor Cuitláhuac, weakening Aztec resistance. Spreading via trade routes, it reached Guatemala and Peru by the mid-1520s, killing 33-50% of some communities. Combined with other diseases, smallpox contributed to a 90-95% population decline across the Americas, from 50-100 million in 1492 to 5-10 million by 1650. The user’s estimate of 80% mortality aligns with this range, though exact figures vary. This biological catastrophe, sparked by a single infected individual, reshaped indigenous societies and facilitated European colonization.

The Spanish monarchy, particularly under King Ferdinand II and Queen Isabella I, viewed the conquest of the New World as a divine mission to spread Christianity, aiming to convert indigenous peoples to Catholicism as part of their imperial agenda. This religious zeal, intertwined with the pursuit of gold and glory, was formalized through papal bulls like the 1493 Inter Caetera, which granted Spain the right to evangelize in newly discovered territories.

Anyway, the Spanish, then English, then Americans, were happy to kill with bullets the natives whom disease hadn't claimed, to the point of some US Cavalry giving smallpox-infected blankets to some cold natives one wintry night, sparking an epidemic. All the Euros acted like this wherever they went, if they could. Blame it on JHVH, imo.

Like the Gnostics say, He's an evil demiurge. The portrayal of YHWH in the Hebrew Bible is a complex and multifaceted depiction of divine character, oscillating between benevolence, justice, and, at times, seemingly capricious and self-aggrandizing behavior. By examining key verses and situating them within their theological and cultural contexts, this analysis aims to illuminate the tensions within the biblical portrayal of YHWH and the Gnostic critique that emerges from it.

Biblical Instances of Arbitrary and Chaotic Behavior

Several passages in the Hebrew Bible depict Yahweh as a deity whose actions seem driven by a need for adulation or appeasement, often in ways that appear unpredictable or disproportionate. One of the earliest examples is found in Exodus 20:5, where Yahweh declares, “I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me.” This verse, part of the Decalogue, establishes Yahweh’s demand for exclusive worship and introduces a punitive mechanism that extends beyond the individual sinner to their descendants. The intergenerational punishment appears arbitrary, as it holds innocent offspring accountable for ancestral transgressions, prioritizing divine jealousy over equitable justice.

Similarly, in Exodus 32:25-28, following the Israelites’ worship of the golden calf, Yahweh commands the Levites to slaughter their fellow Israelites: “Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.” The resulting death toll of three thousand suggests a chaotic and excessive response to idolatry, prioritizing divine wrath and the reassertion of Yahweh’s authority over measured discipline. The demand for immediate and violent retribution underscores a deity whose need for loyalty can manifest in destructive outbursts.

Another striking example is the narrative of Numbers 11:1-3, where the Israelites complain about their hardships in the wilderness, and “the Lord heard this and his anger was aroused. Then fire from the Lord burned among them and consumed some of the outskirts of the camp.” The swift transition from complaint to divine incineration portrays Yahweh as hypersensitive to criticism and quick to unleash chaos. This pattern recurs in Numbers 16:31-35, during Korah’s rebellion, where Yahweh causes the earth to swallow Korah, Dathan, Abiram, and their families, followed by fire consuming 250 of their followers. The indiscriminate inclusion of families in the punishment again suggests an arbitrary exercise of power, prioritizing divine supremacy over individual accountability.

The story of Uzzah in 2 Samuel 6:6-7 further illustrates this unpredictability. When Uzzah touches the Ark of the Covenant to steady it, “the Lord’s anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down, and he died there beside the ark.” Uzzah’s apparent good intention—to prevent the Ark from falling—is met with lethal punishment, highlighting a divine demand for strict adherence to ritual purity by a deity whose  reactions can seem...capricious.

Yahweh’s insistence on praise is evident in Isaiah 42:8, where he declares, “I am the Lord; that is my name! I will not yield my glory to another or my praise to idols.” This statement underscores a divine expectation of exclusive adulation, a zero-sum game where Yahweh’s glory must be upheld at all costs. Similarly, in Malachi 1:11, Yahweh demands that “my name will be great among the nations, from where the sun rises to where it sets,” emphasizing a global expectation of reverence. These verses suggest a deity whose actions are partly motivated by a desire to maintain and expand divine acclaim.

I love that scene in The West Wing--the only five minutes of the show I ever watched, having heard about it years after its broadcast. It’s here for those who want to watch it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CPjWd4MUXs In "The Midterms" (S2 E3), a compelling scene unfolds that critiques the selective use of biblical texts to justify moral and social positions. This scene, set during a Hanukkah celebration in the White House residence, features President Josiah Bartlet, portrayed by Martin Sheen, engaging in a pointed exchange with Dr. Jenna Jacobs, a conservative talk show host who uses her platform to condemn homosexuality by citing biblical authority. Through a series of incisive questions and biblical citations, Bartlet exposes the inconsistencies and impracticalities of adhering strictly to the Mosaic Law, revealing the intellectual fragility of Dr. Jacobs’ position. 

The confrontation begins when Dr. Jacobs defends her stance on homosexuality by asserting, “I don’t say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President. The Bible does.” She specifically references Leviticus 18:22, which states, “You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination” (NIV). 

Bartlet acknowledges her citation, noting, “Chapter and verse,” before probing her commitment to biblical literalism. He questions whether she considers herself a devout Christian, to which she affirms, “Yes.” Bartlet then challenges the selective application of biblical laws, using a series of verses to highlight the absurdity of enforcing all of them in a modern context. This rhetorical strategy underscores the tension between ancient legal codes and contemporary ethical frameworks, a central theme of the scene.

Bartlet begins his critique by citing Exodus 21:7, which permits a father to sell his daughter into slavery, asking Dr. Jacobs if she endorses this practice. He then references Exodus 21:17, which mandates the death penalty for cursing one’s parents, and Leviticus 20:10, which requires execution for adultery. These citations expose the harshness and specificity of the Mosaic Law, questioning their relevance to modern moral sensibilities. Bartlet continues with Leviticus 20:13, which reiterates the condemnation of homosexuality and prescribes death for both parties, directly linking it to Dr. Jacobs’ initial argument. By juxtaposing this verse with others, Bartlet illustrates the inconsistency of cherry-picking scriptures to support a particular agenda while ignoring equally severe injunctions.

The President further cites Leviticus 21:20, which prohibits individuals with physical deformities, such as “crushed testicles,” from approaching the altar, and Leviticus 24:16, which demands death for blasphemy. These references highlight the ritualistic and seemingly arbitrary nature of certain biblical prohibitions, challenging their applicability in a contemporary setting. Bartlet also invokes Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:11, which forbid planting fields with mixed seeds and wearing garments of mixed fabrics, respectively. As noted in scholarly interpretations, these laws reflect the Mosaic emphasis on maintaining distinctions within Israelite society, symbolizing holiness and separateness (Collins, 2018). However, Bartlet uses them to underscore their impracticality today, asking whether such rules should govern modern agriculture or fashion.

The scene’s humor peaks when Bartlet references Leviticus 11:7, which declares that touching the skin of a dead pig renders one unclean, and playfully asks, “Can people still play American football?” ridiculing the notion of applying ancient purity laws to modern sports and modern life. Bartlet also cites Exodus 35:2, which prescribes death for working on the Sabbath, further emphasizing the severity and specificity of biblical penalties. These examples collectively expose the absurdity of literal adherence to the entirety of the Mosaic Law, particularly when used to justify moral judgments like Dr. Jacobs’ condemnation of homosexuality.

Additionally, Bartlet challenges Dr. Jacobs’ selective focus by alluding to positive biblical references to same-sex relationships, stating, “There’s literally a dozen positive references to homosexuality in the Bible, some by David and Jonathan, who did some things that were quote, ‘fairer than that of women'.” This likely refers to 1 Samuel 18:1-4 and 2 Samuel 1:26, where David’s relationship with Jonathan is described with deep emotional intimacy, with David lamenting, “Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women” (NIV). While scholarly debate persists over whether these passages depict romantic love (Hanks, 2000), Bartlet’s inclusion of them serves to counterbalance Dr. Jacobs’ reliance on Leviticus 18:22, suggesting that the Bible contains diverse perspectives on human relationships. (Not referenced in the scene is Leviticus 19:28, which prohibits making cuts or tattoos on the body for the dead, a law understood to distinguish Israelite practices from pagan rituals.)

With the varied prohibitions—ranging from ritual purity to capital offenses—Bartlet constructs a rhetorical trap, forcing Dr. Jacobs to confront the impracticality of her literalist stance. Her stunned silence at the end of the exchange signifies her inability to reconcile her selective use of scripture with the broader, often contradictory, legal framework of the Hebrew Bible.

This scene resonates with broader theological critiques, particularly the Gnostic view of Yahweh as a flawed demiurge, as referenced in texts like the Apocryphon of John (Robinson, 1990). The Gnostics interpreted the Hebrew Bible’s portrayal of a jealous and punitive deity—evident in laws like those in Exodus and Leviticus—as evidence of a lesser god, ignorant of higher divine truths. Bartlet’s critique implicitly aligns with this perspective by exposing the chaos and arbitrariness of enforcing ancient laws, though he frames it within a modern, rationalist lens rather than a Gnostic one. His approach reflects a progressive Christian ethos, emphasizing reason and compassion over rigid dogmatism.

Culturally, the scene addresses the misuse of religious texts to justify prejudice, a pertinent issue in the early 2000s when debates over homosexuality were prominent in American politics. By situating the confrontation in the White House, The West Wing elevates the discussion to a national stage, with Bartlet embodying a moral authority that challenges Dr. Jacobs’ sanctimonious rhetoric. The episode critiques the hypocrisy of using ancient texts, rooted in the Bronze Age context of a small Middle Eastern tribe, to dictate modern social policy, echoing scholarly arguments about the historical specificity of biblical law (Levenson, 1985).

The confrontation in “The Midterms” serves as a powerful critique of biblical literalism, with President Bartlet wielding scripture to expose the inconsistencies of Dr. Jenna Jacobs’ position. By citing verses such as Leviticus 18:22, Exodus 21:7, Leviticus 19:19, Deuteronomy 22:11, and others, Bartlet reveals the impracticality and selectivity of applying Mosaic Law to contemporary issues. The scene’s intellectual rigor, combined with its cultural and theological resonance, underscores the dangers of using ancient texts to justify prejudice

The Gnostic Critique: Yahweh as the Demiurge

The Gnostic traditions, particularly those of the Sethian and Valentinian schools in the second and third centuries CE, offer a radical reinterpretation of Yahweh that aligns with these portrayals of arbitrary and chaotic behavior. In Gnostic cosmology, as articulated in texts like the Apocryphon of John (Nag Hammadi Codex II), Yahweh is equated with the demiurge, a lower, flawed deity named Yaldabaoth, who creates the material world out of ignorance and arrogance. He is identified as a false god who keeps souls trapped in physical bodies, imprisoned in the material universe. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaldabaoth

Unlike the transcendent, ineffable God of Gnostic thought, the demiurge is depicted as a jealous and tyrannical figure, demanding worship and enforcing control over humanity. This view resonates with the biblical passages cited above, where Yahweh’s actions seem driven by a need for propitiation and obedience rather than benevolence or wisdom.

The Gnostic critique frames Yahweh’s demand for exclusive worship, as seen in Exodus 20:3 (“You shall have no other gods before me”), as evidence of the demiurge’s insecurity and ignorance of higher divine realities. In the Hypostasis of the Archons (Nag Hammadi Codex II), Yaldabaoth’s claim to be the sole god is challenged by a voice from the higher realms, revealing his limited understanding. This aligns with the biblical portrayal of a deity who reacts with jealousy and violence when his authority is questioned, as in Exodus 32 or Numbers 16. The Gnostic lens interprets these acts not as divine justice but as the petulant outbursts of a flawed creator, unaware of the true divine pleroma (fullness) above him.

Moreover, the Gnostic view critiques the chaotic nature of Yahweh’s punishments, such as the destruction in Numbers 11 or 2 Samuel 6, as indicative of a deity lacking the moral perfection expected of a supreme being. The demiurge’s creation is seen as inherently flawed, and his actions—marked by unpredictability and a demand for constant appeasement—reflect this imperfection. By contrast, the Gnostic true God is detached, emanating wisdom through aeons rather than engaging in the volatile interventions characteristic of Yahweh.

Theological and Cultural Contexts

To understand these portrayals, it is essential to situate them within the ancient Near Eastern context, where deities were often depicted as powerful yet temperamental figures demanding loyalty. Yahweh’s insistence on praise and obedience, as in Isaiah 42:8, mirrors the expectations of gods like Marduk or Baal, whose cults required constant veneration to ensure cosmic order. However, the biblical texts’ emphasis on monotheism amplifies Yahweh’s jealousy, as seen in Deuteronomy 4:24 (“For the Lord your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God”), distinguishing him from polytheistic counterparts who shared divine honors.

The arbitrary nature of some punishments, such as Uzzah’s death, may also reflect the priestly emphasis on ritual purity in post-exilic Judaism, where adherence to divine law was paramount for communal survival. Yet, these narratives can appear chaotic to modern readers, accustomed to ethical frameworks prioritizing intent and proportionality. The Gnostic critique, emerging in a Hellenistic context, capitalizes on these tensions, reinterpreting Yahweh’s actions as evidence of a narcissistic demiurge rather than a supreme deity.

REFERENCES

• Collins, John J. Introduction to the Hebrew Bible (Fortress Press, 2018). 

• Hanks, Thomas D. The Subversive Gospel: A New Testament Commentary on Homosexuality (Pilgrim Press, 2000). 

• Levenson, Jon D. Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible (HarperOne, 1985). 

• Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 17-22: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Bible, 2000). 

• Robinson, James M., ed. The Nag Hammadi Library (HarperOne, 1990). 

• The Holy Bible, New International Version (NIV).

• The Apocryphon of John, Nag Hammadi Codex II, translated by Frederik Wisse, in The Nag Hammadi Library, edited by James M. Robinson (HarperOne, 1990). 

• The Hypostasis of the Archons, Nag Hammadi Codex II, translated by Bentley Layton, in The Nag Hammadi Library. 

• Collins, John J. Introduction to the Hebrew Bible (Fortress Press, 2018). 

• King, Karen L. The Secret Revelation of John (Harvard University Press, 2006).